Cabinet Friction,stacking Or Wear

Discussion in 'US Coins Forum' started by rzage, Sep 2, 2008.

Page 8 of 16
  1. Insider

    Insider Talent on loan from...

    I HATE IT when someone does what I am going to do now:

    "I don't buy or sell very many coins but..." Then they post an answer...LOL.

    I have heard that several price guides are going to start including an AU-58 coin in the listings.
     
    Insider, Dec 18, 2015
    #141 + Quote Reply
    SuperDave likes this.
  2. Avatar

    Guest User Guest



    to hide this ad.
  3. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    Why is wear singled out ?

    Quite simple, because the very definition of an uncirculated coin is - a coin that has no wear.

    That simple definition is the very foundation of coin grading. And it has been with us far, far longer than any grading standards. In effect, at one time (well over 100 years ago) it was the only grading standard. Which is precisely what you were talking about in the rest of your post.

    The first serious, and organized discussions among numismatists to establish grading standards beyond that simple standard started in the 1890's. It was that long ago that numismatists recognized that circulated and uncirculated simply wasn't enough to even begin being able to accurately describe the condition of a coin. That's what grading is, the ability to describe the condition, the state of preservation, of a coin.

    At first it was done with words, and then in 1948, Sheldon came up with the concept of doing it with numbers. Subsequent numismatists took that system, that was only intended to ever be used with large cents, and adapted it, changed it, and used it for all coins.

    Now that very simple, but clear and precise, definition of uncirculated coin that I quoted at the beginning of this post, that definition remained unchanged, even for the TPGs, until recent years. It was only then that they changed things, and for specific reasons. Reasons that have nothing to do with accurate grading by the way.
     
    GDJMSP, Dec 19, 2015
    #142 + Quote Reply
  4. eddiespin

    eddiespin Fast Eddie

    That's a good point to ponder on the contact marks. While I'm pondering it, I think I see where you're astray, if I may, in your second paragraph. Let me see I can get you back on the track, by pointing this out. When we cross into MS, we cross a threshold. We cross from looking for wear, compromising the devices, primarily, to contacts and luster, from the moment it left the Mint. That's why, remove the touch of wear on that AU58, it's MS64, going away. That's technical grading, i.e., condition grading. Now, to where I think you did hit the nail on the head. Market grading, indeed, is a continuum. Do we know why? It mixes up or synthesizes grades with the price guides. That's what it is. That's why it's here. It's money grading, if they were honest about it, pure and simple.
     
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2015
    eddiespin, Dec 19, 2015
    #143 + Quote Reply
    micbraun likes this.
  5. Jaelus

    Jaelus The Hungarian Antiquarian Supporter

    While I appreciate the history, I'm asking why it's more important in AU58-MS64 to concretely delineate circulated/uncirculated over indicating the overall state of preservation. Overall state of preservation should trump it; it's reflected in the price because it's what collectors actually believe and value over a technical grade.

    I've got technical AU58s that look like AU58s, and I've got technical AU58s that are graded MS61-MS64. If a coin has the slightest hint of rub under magnification but completely pristine fields it is in a better state of preservation than a technically uncirculated MS60, and deserves a higher grade because of it. My point is that the technical grade is really less relevant in these situations than the overall appearance of the coin. It only serves to give lower grades to better coins. That this is how it has historically been done, while absolutely informative, isn't a justification for a lack of improvement in the grading system.
     
    Jaelus, Dec 19, 2015
    #144 + Quote Reply
  6. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    While I will agree that that is how they define it, or what people call it - today - that is not what it is, nor what it was. What you are describing is more correctly called value grading. Market grading is an entirely different thing. Market grading is the grading system developed by the ANA in 1986, and subsequently adopted, and altered, by the TPGs in '86 and '87 (PCGS & NGC respectively).

    But like they do with many other words and phrases, people make up their own definitions because they don't understand or simply don't know what the true definition actually is, or what it accurately describes.
     
    GDJMSP, Dec 19, 2015
    #145 + Quote Reply
  7. eddiespin

    eddiespin Fast Eddie

    You're stating the justifications for market grading, and you're right, those indeed are the justifications. But, it's a fairyland. And there's no meaningful collector participation in it, at all. It's, this is what the market graders say, and, take it or leave it. I'll leave it.
     
    Last edited: Dec 19, 2015
    eddiespin, Dec 19, 2015
    #146 + Quote Reply
  8. eddiespin

    eddiespin Fast Eddie

    Who you you think influenced ANA to go to market grading, Doug? ANA is the TPGs' plausible denial. "The ANA did it, we didn't do it. We're just here the next day with a global business model purely by coincidence being paid to grade your coins pursuant to these new and improved grading standards nobody can question us on because they're pretentious, arbitrary and unintelligible. That's not our fault. That's the ANA's doing." Yeah, go on. I'm sorry, I'm not buying it.
     
    eddiespin, Dec 19, 2015
    #147 + Quote Reply
  9. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    I understand what you are saying, and I'll readily agree that there are AU coins that look better than some MS coins, and yeah, real MS coins. And I say "real" to differentiate from what the TPGs call MS coins. A "real" MS coin is a coin that has no wear.

    But you see that's the thing, that's what we can't get past because that is the very definition of an uncirculated coin. Are you suggesting we change that definition because the AU coin "looks better" ?

    On that basis you could take an ugly, but truly MS, coin and polish it all up with a jeweler's cloth and make it "look better" than it did before. But if you did then it wouldn't be MS anymore now would it ? Just like it wouldn't be MS anymore if you dipped it until all the ugly toning and all traces of underlying luster were gone. But yeah it would "look better".

    What you're describing is a way to accurately price coins with a grade. But you can't do that. That is because a grade's sole purpose is to accurately describe the condition, the state of preservation, of the coin. And the value of the coin has nothing to do with that.

    Can an AU coin be worth more than an MS coin ? Yes, absolutely, and they often are - to people who buy coins. It is only to people who buy plastic that they are not. And people who buy plastic do so because they don't know anything about coins. And if they don't know anything about coins, then how could they possibly know anything about the value of coins ? Answer, they can't.

    What you want is a way to be able to sell, better and more valuable coins, but coins that are graded lower, to people who don't know any better. You want a way to get the true value out of your coins with lower grades. And I can't blame you for that.

    But the answer is not to change the grading system because most people are ignorant. The answer is to educate those people.

    It is only with the advent of all these people who have no clue about coins coming into the hobby, plastic buyers coming into the hobby, that has brought us to the mess we are in today. It is because of them that the TPGs have done what they have done - which is to overgrade coins in an effort to get more money out of them. And because all of these people don't know any better, because they are ignorant, they, the TPGs, have succeeded.

    Yeah, it's a simple but very sad fact that plastic buyers far, far outnumber coin buyers. So a grading system that was true and accurate was bastardized in order to make ignorant people happy.

    How can there not be something wrong with that idea ?
     
    GDJMSP, Dec 19, 2015
    #148 + Quote Reply
    Stevearino and micbraun like this.
  10. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    This is a pertinent question, and the answer is quite simple, everybody involved in numismatics did. Market grading, as it was designed, was the next step in the evolution of grading. That system, for the first time in history, allowed us to be able to accurately describe the condition of a coin. That was it's sole purpose, and it did it very, very well.

    To understand it all you have to do is know what existed before that. And what existed before that was a grading system that did not allow us to accurately describe the condition of a coin. Prior to market grading all there was was technical grading, and you'd be hard pressed to find anybody in numismatics who agreed that technical grading did the job. The giants in numismatics, as well as the rank and file, agreed that technical grading just wasn't good enough, just didn't do the job, could not do it. And so the numismatic community as a whole got together, sat down and worked it out over a long period of time. It took years to develop the market grading system, many years. It was not something that was done by a select group of people.
     
    GDJMSP, Dec 19, 2015
    #149 + Quote Reply
  11. SuperDave

    SuperDave Free the Cartwheels!

    I'ma just shut up and listen.
     
    SuperDave, Dec 19, 2015
    #150 + Quote Reply
  12. TubeRider

    TubeRider Active Member

    Exactly!!!
     
    TubeRider, Dec 19, 2015
    #151 + Quote Reply
  13. Insider

    Insider Talent on loan from...

    This is a great discussion. I'm going to add my $2 worth when I have more time. For now:

    From what I have read, the ANA bastardized Technical Grading as was done when it was in DC. INSAB was the first third party grading service and continued to use it as it was first conceived.

    ANACS and INSAB lost the playground because technical grading was only concerned with a coin's state of preservation after it left the dies - not its eye appeal among other things. The COIN MARKET and all that entails (dealers, auction houses, etc.)forced the ANA to change its grading standards (MS-65 became MS-63's in many cases). ANA had to change to stay in business. By 1986 (?) when PCGS came around INSAB went virtually belly-up and the ANA lost huge market share.
     
    Insider, Dec 19, 2015
    #152 + Quote Reply
  14. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    Yes, the ANA wrote the first set of actual grading standards. It was written in 1977 and that was the first edition of their grading book. And it was purely technical grading. The second edition was also technical grading.

    It was '86 when they finally developed the market grading standards and that became the 3rd edition of their grading standards. But the book didn't actually get published until '87. That book, which is now in it's 7th edition (published just last year) has remained virtually unchanged from the 3rd edition. The only changes in all that time were for 2 coins, Lincoln cents and Buffalo nickels, and even then the change only affected 1 grade for each coin. All other standards for all other grades remained the same.

    It is also worth note that the people who founded PCGS and NGC participated in all those meeting that the ANA held while market grading being developed. It was only after they decided to found their own grading companies that they decided that ANA standards were too strict for them and made up their own, more lenient grading standards.

    Since then, the TPGs have decided that even their own grading standards were too strict and loosened those standards even more. And have done that a couple of times.
     
    GDJMSP, Dec 19, 2015
    #153 + Quote Reply
  15. eddiespin

    eddiespin Fast Eddie

    I'll tell you this, Doug. If ANA called it "Market Nonsense," instead of "Market Grading," I'd feel a whole lot better about it.

    I'll give our newbies looking for "double dies" a free tip, here. Read and learn how to technical grade. Then you know what you've got. The rest is icing on the cake.
     
    eddiespin, Dec 20, 2015
    #154 + Quote Reply
    swamp yankee likes this.
  16. Insider

    Insider Talent on loan from...

    Yes, market grading was the next step: however Market grading DOES NOT describe a coin's actual condition. Technical grading did accurately described a coin's condition. ANA never employed technical grading after it moved to CO - although they said they did...LOL. Tell a lie long enough (as in ANACS graded technically and was the first grading service) and people will believe it The people there had no clue/were never taught/had no input into its development at ANACS while it was in DC where it was used ONLY to describe a coin for internal records, along with a photo of both sides and a weight to hundredths of a gram. Technical grading does not work when you try to place a $$$Value$$$ on a coin. That's because coins were graded by their condition of preservation from when they left the die. A flat "O" Mint dollar with full luster and no marks was graded the same as a fully struck coin in the same condition. Eye-appeal such as spotted toning did not affect the grade. These examples are wide apart in value. That's why market grading is important and drove the other system out. Market grading attempts to put a value on a coin REGARDLESS of its actual technical condition...the AU's graded MS-64 we all write about..
     
    Insider, Dec 20, 2015
    #155 + Quote Reply
    eddiespin likes this.
  17. swamp yankee

    swamp yankee Well-Known Member

    I'm turned off by coins that look like they've used as pucks in street hockey games,and ones "toned" so dark as to be close to melt quality....
     
    swamp yankee, Dec 20, 2015
    #156 + Quote Reply
  18. Insider

    Insider Talent on loan from...

    I had to get out of bed because I couldn't let this go as is. I was trying to make a point. ANACS and the employees there in CO did not understand or employ TRUE technical grading; however, I knew most of them to be outstanding professionals who are legends in our hobby...Tom Delorey, Ed Fleishman, etc.

    Back to bed...LOL.
     
    Insider, Dec 20, 2015
    #157 + Quote Reply
  19. GDJMSP

    GDJMSP Numismatist Moderator

    Eddie, I think you're basing your comment on a false assumption, but you can correct me if I am wrong. I think the reason you're saying that, stress think, is because you are misunderstanding something. What exactly ? Well, I think, that when I say that the ANA created market grading you are assuming that the value of a coin played a part in determining the grade of a coin.

    But this is not the case at all. When the ANA created market grading the value of a coin played no part whatsoever. The value of a coin simply was not involved, was not part of the ANA market grading system, in any way, shape, or form. Market grading, as designed by the ANA, determines the grade of a coin based solely on the condition of that coin - nothing else. And that has never changed in ANA grading standards.

    If you think that is "market nonsense", OK, you're welcome to have your own opinion.

    I don't think you understand the difference between market grading, and technical grading. Because if you did there would be no way you could even think that, let alone say it.

    Technical grading is a very simplified system, and technical grading is what was used by everybody, prior to 1986. For one thing, with technical grading grading there were only 3 MS grades - MS60, MS65, and MS70. No other MS grades even existed. The same was true for Proof grades - PF60, PF65, and PF 70. It was a similar situation with circulated grades. There was AG3, G4, VG8, F12, VF20, VF30, XF40, XF45, AU50, and AU55. No other circulated grades existed. As you can see on that basis alone technical grading is very different from the grades we use today.

    And how you determine those grades with technical grading is also very different. The only things considered (the criteria) to determine the technical grade are as follows, for MS coins - there can be no wear; MS70 &65 both have to have full mint luster, MS60 may lack full mint luster; planchet characteristics; bag marks (or contact marks if you prefer); scratches; edge bumps, nicks or dents - and that's it. Nothing else is taken into consideration in order to determine the technical grade of a coin.

    For circulated grades the amount of remaining detail is used. And anywhere from three quarters to traces of original mint luster must remain on coins from 55 down to XF40, respectively.

    That, is technical grading. That is all there is to it and there is nothing else.

    Market grading however is quite different. All of the MS grades were added and many circulated grades were added. And the grading criteria for MS coins were changed significantly. There can be no wear. Regarding luster, the quality of the luster is judged and the higher the grade the higher that quality must be. Planchet characteristics are taken into account. How well centered the coin is, is taken into consideration. Bag marks (contact marks), their number, their size and/or severity, and their location is taken into consideration, and that varies for smaller sized coin and larger sized coins. Scratches and their number, size, severity, and location are taken into consideration. Hairlines, which are different than scratches, their number, size, severity, and location are taken into consideration. Eye appeal is taken into consideration and its quality judged. The lower the eye appeal, the lower the grade must be.

    And please note - value is not even mentioned ! It plays no part whatsoever in determining the grade of a coin.

    With circulated grades, there were many more grades added. And much more, and more precise, descriptions of the remaining detail on a coin are used to determine the specific circulated grade of that coin.

    Those are the differences between market grading and technical grading. And as you can see they are very different. All of this information is taken directly from the ANA grading standards books. The 1st (1977) and 2nd edition ANA books are based on technical grading. The 3rd edition (1986), as well as all subsequent editions up to and including the 7th edition (2014) are based on market grading standards.



    And Mike, once you read and understand all of the above, it should be pretty easy to understand why technical grading absolutely did not accurately describe the condition of a coin. And why market grading does accurately describe the condition of a coin.
     
    GDJMSP, Dec 21, 2015
    #158 + Quote Reply
  20. Insider

    Insider Talent on loan from...

    Insider said: ↑
    Yes, market grading was the next step: however Market grading DOES NOT describe a coin's actual condition. Technical grading did accurately described a coin's condition.

    Reply: I don't think you understand the difference between market grading, and technical grading. Because if you did there would be no way you could even think that, let alone say it.

    I'm going to use caps to add my comments. I am not screaming - just adding some FRIENDLY clarifications as I understand them as I was there also as all this took place back then.

    Technical grading is a very simplified system - YES IT IS

    ,and technical grading is what was used by everybody, prior to 1986 - ABSOLUTELY NOT. TRUE TECH. GRADING AS DEVELOPED/USED FOR THE INTERNAL RECORDS AT ANACS IN WASHINGTON ENDED IN 1975-6 WHEN ANACS MOVED TO CO. INSAB, THE FIRST TPGS, OPENED IN DC AND CONTINUED USING TRUE TECH GRADING. TECH BECAME BASTERDIZED IN CO.

    For one thing, with technical grading grading there were only 3 MS grades - MS60, MS65, and MS70. No other MS grades even existed. The same was true for Proof grades - PF60, PF65, and PF 70. It was a similar situation with circulated grades. There was AG3, G4, VG8, F12, VF20, VF30, XF40, XF45, AU50, and AU55. No other circulated grades existed. As you can see on that basis alone technical grading is very different from the grades we use today. AGAIN, MOSTLY FALSE INFORMATION. THERE WERE ONLY 2 UNC GRADES IN USE, 60 AND 65. MS-70 AND PF-70 DID NOT EXIST IN TECH GRADING. ONLY THE FOLLOWING SHELDON NUMBERS WERE USED, 1,2,3,4,6,8,10,12,15,20,30,40,50,60,AND 65 AS PUBLISHED EXCEPT 70. XF-45 AND AU-55 DID NOT EXIST.

    And how you determine those grades with technical grading is also very different. TRUE

    The only things considered (the criteria) to determine the technical grade are as follows, for MS coins - there can be no wear - TRUE;

    MS70 &65 both have to have full mint luster, MS60 may lack full mint luster NOT TRUE, AS YOU SAID BEFORE MS COINS [EVEN 60'S] MUST HAVE FULL,ORIGINAL MINT LUSTER.

    ; planchet characteristics; bag marks (or contact marks if you prefer); scratches; edge bumps, nicks or dents - and that's it. Nothing else is taken into consideration in order to determine the technical grade of a coin. - CLOSE BUT NOT EXACTLY.
    FOR EXAMPLE: TODAYS MS-64 MORGAN GEM WITH A FLAT EAR AND BREAST WAS TECH GRADED AS CHOICE UNC (MS-65 IN THE 1970'S) FLAT STRIKE. THE SAME GRADE ASSIGNED TO A GEM COIN W/STRONG STRIKE. UNCIRCULATED (MS-60) EXCESSIVE BAGMARKS DISCRIBED TODAYS 60 - 61 COIN, ETC.


    For circulated grades the amount of remaining detail is used. TRUE

    And anywhere from three quarters to traces of original mint luster must remain on coins from 55 down to XF40, respectively. GOOD ENOUGH

    That, is technical grading. That is all there is to it and there is nothing else. I DON'T HAVE TIME TO GO OVER THE SOMETHING ELSE. PERHAPS ANOTHER TIME I WILL POST SOME COINS AND TECH GRADE THEM. ANYWAY, IT DOES NOT MATTER AS COLLECTORS NEED TO LEARN MARKET (VALUE) GRADING WHICH IS MADE MORE DIFFICULT BECAUSE YOU NEED TO KNOW THE COMMERCIAL COIN MARKET AND BE AN EXPERIENCED GRADER. TECH GRADING IS THE BEST SYSTEM TO TEACH NEWBIES. THEN THEY'LL NEAD TO LEARN THE MARKET AND TO BECOME MORE LIBERAL.

    Market grading however is quite different. All of the MS grades were added and many circulated grades were added. YEP, 25,35,45,58,61,62,64,66,67,68,69,70.

    And the grading criteria for MS coins were changed significantly. There can be no wear. NOPE, WE ALL KNOW MARKET GRADING ALLOWS WEAR.

    Regarding luster, the quality of the luster is judged and the higher the grade the higher that quality must be. ABSOLUTELY, AND EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO EYE APPEAL. NEWBIES LEARN THIS. LUSTER, EYE-APPEAL MORE IMPORTANT THAT THE ACTUAL AMOUNT OF WEAR!

    Planchet characteristics are taken into account. How well centered the coin is, is taken into consideration. Bag marks (contact marks), their number, their size and/or severity, and their location is taken into consideration, and that varies for smaller sized coin and larger sized coins. YEP

    Scratches and their number, size, severity, and location are taken into consideration. Hairlines, which are different than scratches, their number, size, severity, and location are taken into consideration. YEP

    Eye appeal is taken into consideration and its quality judged. The lower the eye appeal, the lower the grade must be. YEP SEE WE MIGHT AGREE AFTER ALL.

    And please note - value is not even mentioned ! It plays no part whatsoever in determining the grade of a coin. ABSOLUTELY, VERIFIABLE, BAD INFO. COIN DEALERS, TPG'S I NEED YOUR SUPPORT ON THIS. OTHERWISE I HAVE A BUNCH OF AU-58 1884-S, 1895-0, AND 1892-S DOLLARS FOR SALE...LOL.

    With circulated grades, there were many more grades added. And much more, and more precise, descriptions of the remaining detail on a coin are used to determine the specific circulated grade of that coin.

    Those are the differences between market grading and technical grading. PLEASE SEE COMMENTS ABOVE.

    And as you can see they are very different. All of this information is taken directly from the ANA grading standards books. The 1st (1977) and 2nd edition ANA books are based on technical grading. The 3rd edition (1986), as well as all subsequent editions up to and including the 7th edition (2014) are based on market grading standards. THE ANA GRADING GUIDES ARE OBSOLETE FOR THE MOST PART. THEY NEED A REVISION TO GET UP TO SPEED; HOWEVER THE INTRO TO THOSE BOOKS IS REQUIRED READING FOR ALL COIN COLLECTORS.



    And Mike, once you read and understand all of the above, it should be pretty easy to understand why technical grading absolutely did not accurately describe the condition of a coin. And why market grading does accurately describe the condition of a coin. THANKS DOUQ, WINK, WINK. I DO ENJOY JOUSTING WITH YOU BECAUSE YOU PLAY NICE.
    GDJMSP, 14 minutes ago Report Best Answer
    #158 Like + Quote Reply
     
    Insider, Dec 21, 2015
    #159 + Quote Reply
  21. Insider

    Insider Talent on loan from...

    Not exactly true, there were several grading guides before the ANA became involved BECAUSE it seemed that no one was following any standard1 The ANA TRIED to set one but many still did not comply.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 22, 2015
    Insider, Dec 21, 2015
    #160 + Quote Reply
    derkerlegand likes this.
148 more messages...
Page 8 of 16
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page